Gandhi and Religious Conversion by Himanshu Sekhar Mishra
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Himanshu Sekhar Mishra PhD Scholar Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi [email protected] GANDHI AND RELIGIOUS CONVERSION In a time, when the complex and emotionally charged issue like conversion has been exploited by fundamentalists, confused by liberals, not being comprehended by many what all the fuss is about, revisiting Gandhi’s view on conversion is in itself a great significance so far as India’s multi cultural and pluri-religious society is concerned. Gandhi’s views on religious conversion are being characterized by communal harmony. His definition of conversion means a definite giving up of the evil of the world, adaptation of all the good of the new and a scrupulous avoidance of everything evil in the new. Conversion should, therefore, mean a life of greater dedication to one’s own country, greater surrender to God and greater self purification. For him, conversion is a heart process known only to and by God. It must be left to itself…. Those who believe in it have a perfect right to follow their own course without let or hindrance, so long as it is kept within proper limit. In this sense, he was not against right to conversion (convert’s right). But he was against right to conversion so far as it means missionary right to convert people. He was against such conversion since it leads to mutual decrying of rival faiths which gives rise to mutual hatred. This is why, he was against any kind of propagation. To him, propagation of religion is nothing but the negation of toleration and the best way of dealing with such propaganda is to publicly condemn it. He was not only against conversion by missionaries, but also against shuddhi by Arya Samaj. Regarding shuddhi (reconversion) he is of the opinion that there is no such thing as proselytism in Hinduism, as it is understood in Christianity, or to a lesser extent in Islam. The Arya Samaj has, he thinks, copied the Christians in planning its propaganda. To him, the real shuddhi movement should consist in each one trying to arrive at perfection in his or her own faith. This paper is just an elaboration of this theme. Key Words: Conversion, Atmaparivartan, Dharmantara, Propaganda It is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi whose inclusiveness places him in opposition to conversion to a religious tradition other than one’s own. Here he seems to typify the mainstream Hindu position. In fact, religious fundamentalists and nationalists have co-opted him to their own purposes on the issue of religious conversion. However, on the issue of religious conversion, neither Gandhi nor Ambedkar can be ignored. The starting point and ending point of both are quite opposite. Gandhi was a reformer in the sense that he was in favor of atmaparivartan but not a proselytizer since he was against dharmantara (a change of religious tradition). Gandhi along with Ambedkar has remained a powerful critique of Christian missionaries. In deed to both converters and converts Gandhi represents a most genuine challenge to deeper and most honest introspection. Hence, revisiting Gandhi’s view on conversion is in itself becomes a great significance. It is Gandhi “I am against conversion, whether it is known as shuddhi by Hindus, tabligh by Muslmans or proselytizing by Christians…” (Cited in Rao 1994, P. 56).It seems from the above statement that Gandhi was against religious conversion but the real fact is that he had a different kind of mind set.His definition of conversion means a definite giving up of the evil of the world, adaptation of all the good of the new and a scrupulous avoidance of everything evil in the new. Conversion should, therefore, mean a life of greater dedication to one’s own country, greater surrender to God and greater self purification (Young India, 20 August 1925). GANDHI AND PROSELYTIZERS For Gandhi, conversion is a heart process known only to and by god. It must be left to itself…Those who believe in it have a perfect right to follow their own course without let or hindrance, so long as it is kept within proper limit, i.e., so long as there is no force or fraud or material inducement and so long as the parties are free agents and of mature age and understanding. According to him, the cases of real honest conversion are possible. He was of the opinion that “if some people for their inward satisfaction and growth change their religion, let them do so…” (Young India, 19 January 1928). Gandhi believes that oppression within one’s religious tradition was not sufficient reason for abandoning it. In fact he supports intelligent conversion but at the same time he knew that the so-called untouchables and shudras are not converted by an appeal to reason because of his own choice of being a Harijan. To place his actual words “having become a Harijan by choice, I know the mind of the Harijans. There is not a single Harijan today who can fall in that category (change of faith out of heartfelt conviction and spiritual urge) what do they understand of Islam? Nor do they understand why they are Hindu…they are what they are because they are born in a particular faith. If they change religion, it would be merely from compulsion or some temptation held out to them in return. In present atmosphere, no voluntary change of faith should have any validity” (Cited in Rao 1994, P. 62). Gandhi’s opposition to conversion is located within the context of his unique understanding of religion. His understanding of religion transcends religiosity. It is essentially a spiritual quest for moksha, but one rooted in the reality of service to the last and least in this world. For him, religion is a personal concern, not a matter of labeling but of belief and action. It is thus a quest for a moral and spiritual identity. To quote him“I believe that there is no such thing as conversion from one faith to another in the accepted sense of the term. It is highly a personal matter for the individual and his god. I may not have any design upon my neighbor as to his faith, which I must honor even as I honor my own. For I regard all the great religions as true, at any rate for the people professing them, as mine is true for me…And seeing that it takes all my resources in trying to bring my practice to the level of my faith and in preaching the same to my co-religionists, I do not dream of preaching to the followers of other faiths” (Harijan, 28 September 1935).Gandhi moves on to say that a quest for religious identity is moral and spiritual and within the context of one’s Varna and dharma. Both are ascribed at birth, hence, Gandhi cannot see people making a change of identity either. It would be against the social and moral responsibility of the convert towards his own Verna. His understanding of varnashrama dharma does not allow for a dharmantar. For him, there can be no changing your dharma. This would amount to adharma. It is much like changing your mother. Your mother may be bad so you may try to reform or improve her, but you do not, or rather cannot, ever change her for another. For even an adopted mother can never ever become the birth mother. This colored his whole attitude to caste and conversion. GANDHI AND CONVERTERS Gandhi’s understanding of conversion as prevails in India is that “it is the transference of allegiance from one fold to another and the mutual decrying of rival faiths which gives rise to mutual hatred” (Cited in Rao 1994, P. 57). For Gandhi, religious proselytization and conversion has the potential to further heighten tensions and precipitate destabilizing consequences: “it is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress towards peace. ‘Warring creeds’ is a blasphemous expression. And it fitly describes the state of things in India, the mother-as I believe her to be-of religion or religions. If she is truly the mother, the motherhood is on trial” (Harijan, 30 January 1937). In this sense,he was totally against Christian conversion.He understands Christian conversion as forcible conversion. To him “to change one’s religion under threat of force is no conversion but rather cowardice. A cowardly man or woman is dead weight on any religion. Out of fear they may become Muslim today, Christian tomorrow and pass into a third religion the day after…” (Cited in Rao 1994, P. 63). At the same time he has also said that religion cannot be forced upon an unwilling heart. It will mean death to the three religions. He continues by saying that “I do not know a single writer on Islam who defends the use of force in the proselytizing process” (ibid. 59). “There is nothing in the Koran to warrant the use of force for conversion. The holy book says in clearest language possible: there is no compulsion in religion. It is therefore, up to the leaders of the Muslims to declare that forcible repetition of a formula cannot make a non Muslim into a Muslim. It only shames Islam…” (ibid). One who is forcibly converted to Islam ceases to be a man. To recite the kalma through fear is meaningless… I would never mind if a Hindu recites the kalma willingly and with full heart.